radiation15 Wrote:hi guys, can you please tell me how much you've improved in a month, 2 month, 3 month ect
example, *hi my name is john i improved my vision from -4.00 to -3.75 in a month* happy restoring
One problem with this way of measuring progress is that, in the optometric scientist's office/lab, the scientist-doctor-technician requires the testee to sit still, hold their head very still and rigid, don't shift or fidget, stare at one spot/area/letter at a time, follow their directions which aren't intended to help you learn to use your visual system better, simply to tell you how wrongly you're using it - all things that prevent the proper functioning of a misaligned and underdeveloped visual system, especially the optic chiasm.
It is sort of like trying to measure one's progress in learning to ride a bike or play a sport - if you had to stop and assess your progress at every step (hold the handlebars perfectly, get everything pointed perfectly, foot on the pedal perfectly, ready to jump on perfectly, push off perfectly, swing the leg over perfectly, etcetera) you'd never get it because you'd spend too much time and energy trying to get each part of the system to perfectly match someone else's preconceived idea/program of what constituted 'perfect'.
The opticians don't even tell us exactly what we're doing wrong; they simply assign a quantitative measure to the amount of wrongness we're exhibiting. If they were to actually tell us exactly what we are doing or not doing differently from those with more normal eyesight (exactly how I'm slouching; exactly how my eyes aren't pointed at what I'm looking at; exactly how I'm not moving my head; exactly how I'm not blinking correctly; exactly how I'm not breathing correctly; exactly how I'm squinting; etcetera (all the things which the Bates Methods improve) then we might start to develop better vision right there in the optometrist's office. But then they wouldn't make as much money because it would take too long, and we'd start to figure out how to develop normal eyesight on our own, and we wouldn't need them any more.
It's as if I was given a bike and told to start riding, then I crash and then the judge holds up a card that says '-2.8'. And that's all the information I get!
radiation15 Wrote:hi guys, can you please tell me how much you've improved in a month, 2 month, 3 month ect
example, *hi my name is john i improved my vision from -4.00 to -3.75 in a month* happy restoring
One problem with this way of measuring progress is that, in the optometric scientist's office/lab, the scientist-doctor-technician requires the testee to sit still, hold their head very still and rigid, don't shift or fidget, stare at one spot/area/letter at a time, follow their directions which aren't intended to help you learn to use your visual system better, simply to tell you how wrongly you're using it - all things that prevent the proper functioning of a misaligned and underdeveloped visual system, especially the optic chiasm.
It is sort of like trying to measure one's progress in learning to ride a bike or play a sport - if you had to stop and assess your progress at every step (hold the handlebars perfectly, get everything pointed perfectly, foot on the pedal perfectly, ready to jump on perfectly, push off perfectly, swing the leg over perfectly, etcetera) you'd never get it because you'd spend too much time and energy trying to get each part of the system to perfectly match someone else's preconceived idea/program of what constituted 'perfect'.
The opticians don't even tell us exactly what we're doing wrong; they simply assign a quantitative measure to the amount of wrongness we're exhibiting. If they were to actually tell us exactly what we are doing or not doing differently from those with more normal eyesight (exactly how I'm slouching; exactly how my eyes aren't pointed at what I'm looking at; exactly how I'm not moving my head; exactly how I'm not blinking correctly; exactly how I'm not breathing correctly; exactly how I'm squinting; etcetera (all the things which the Bates Methods improve) then we might start to develop better vision right there in the optometrist's office. But then they wouldn't make as much money because it would take too long, and we'd start to figure out how to develop normal eyesight on our own, and we wouldn't need them any more.
It's as if I was given a bike and told to start riding, then I crash and then the judge holds up a card that says '-2.8'. And that's all the information I get!
bro whats your point? why are you comparing eyesight to a bike i already know how the whole system works, how much did you improve your eyesight by the first month
[quote="radiation15 bro whats your point? why are you comparing eyesight to a bike i already know how the whole system works, how much did you improve your eyesight by the first month[/quote]
I'm comparing the visual system to an invisible bicycle which every human (and some other mammals such as cats) is given at birth, and which is already set in motion when we receive it as soon as we open our eyes. It has many parts all of which are connected and must operate together in a specifc way or else it will crash. To fix it and operate it and get it running smoothly we have to find out what the parts are, where they are, how to fix them if they need it, how to get it moving again, how to keep it moving, etc.
As to your knowledge of how the whole visual system works, I doubt that. Answer me:
1. How, exactly, are myopic eyeballs considered 'too long' by optometric science?
2. Why is it more difficult to get light focused onto the macula/fovea than any other part of the retina?
3. Where exactly is the macula/fovea located on the retina?
4. Where exactly is the retinal blindspot?
5. Where is the optic chiasm and what happens exactly at the optic chiasm?
6. What is a 'pseudo fovea' and how is it created? How does it differ from the true foveas?
7. What is the tearfilm and what is it good for?
8. Stop me when you've had enough!
Here, I'll roll my eyes for you so you don't have to!
: :
OK, so I have been quiet (too busy with my life and improving my eyesight at the same time) and will go away again after this post.
I have been discovering one very important factor about the Bates MEthod, which is actually quite obvious: It doesn't work with reducing diopters! I really cannot explain it yet intelligently why that is, but basically, it is quite possible that a person would require -8.00 diopters of concave glasses the day before he/she is cured permanently. Or one would improve to 20/50 and get the restriction removed from his driver's license but would still need -5.00, or something to have 20/20 vision. The correlation between visual acuity and diopters is non-existent.
It is amazing to me how noone has discovered this fact, other than Dr. Bates and we continue to fall for the success stories where the person claims he has stepped his prescriptions down gradually.
It is possible that the prescription will be reduced officially and it actually has happened to me (a funny thing for me), but there is nothing in the Bates method, which would guarantee that the improvement would take that form. (I think in my case, what happened was that I took my glasses off and began working 7+hours a day in front of the computer screen outside of my comfort zone and this has given me no choice but to extend this zone. But it wasn't the palming, shifting and swinging which has made it happen, although they have enabled me to relax & to work from further, which in turn contributed to the reduction. But this I cannot be sure of at all.)
I have been reading about Optical Geometry and the blunders, which scientists have made regarding the axial length of the eyeball causing shortsightedness is becoming simple for me to see.
Rather than "focusing"on the eye's ability to focus, one should think about the eye's ability to shift smoothly. Basically, in your comfort zone, if you are correctible, you are able to shift, as soon as you are out of your zone, even if only by a fraction of an inch, the eye becomes irradical, uncontrollable, crazy and can no longer resolve the 1' of arc, which it is ought to for the 20/20. Ok so I am getting ahead of myself here... anyways I am totally committed to doing more investigative work on this subject (sometime in the future) and urge anyone who is a bit scientifically inclined to work on it with me, too. Make your own conclusions based on the facts. Learn all tehre is to know about optics to see how it works (or doesn't work.)
In the meantime, stop getting your eyes tested by the optometrist, test it yourself and only go with the visual acuity. Unless you are crazy like me, I am prepared to fight my battle with the optometrists, so I will be going back there sooner or later...
@Andrea_Major: I think that a number of people (in the success stories section) have come to the same conclusion you have and the reason most of us don't want to accept it is because it's counter-intuitive. Basically, I think that as visual acuity improves, there will be a drop, whether small or large, in the diopters of a prescription, but I doubt that it's possible to make any sort of a correlation that fits most people, although it might be possible to do it for one person.
how much have you improved in a month
:
